Time to repeal the Second Amendment?

[04SCTLS]

Should We Repeal the Second Amendment?

Do Guns Have More RightsThan People?


http://www.associatedcontent.com/ar...we_repeal_the_second_amendment_pg2.html?cat=9

Perhaps it is time to take a second look at the Second Amendment that is held as dear as the Ten Commandments from Moses from the Mount by those who champion it. The National Rifle Association, or NRA, will likely balk at this.
But perhaps it's time we did without some of the issues, and either repeal or rewrite it. How about rewriting it to say guns belong within a militia and not for individuals. Then states can issue licenses for guns for hunting, nothing more. If folks don't use them for hunting, check them out and check them back in, than they shouldn't have them. There are too many accidents and far too many killings.

What about those folks who say we as individuals need protection in our homes? Well what about police? Why not back communities and make law enforcement work efficiently and fairly. If we have police and sheriff departments and pay our tax dollars to have them, why do we need guns in our homes. Many people have lived long lives never owning guns and have lived quite satisfactorily as well. So the idea of protecting yourself in the home really says you don't trust the police to protect you nor security agencies who can install alarms to help. What does that say about our police? Isn't that an insult to their organizations?

There are people who agree with me. A watchdog blog from the New York Times has a column that asks the same thing: why not repeal the Second Amendment. Well, I'm for that. Carolyn Lewis wrote a blog in early April this year about that very thing. It seems, she says, that gun owners have rights that people don't have. In fact there have been a number of incidents where whole groups of people have been the target of gun owners. She asks a reasonable question about whether or not in the 21st century we need guns to protect ourselves. After all we do have those law enforcement agencies in our towns. This isn't the Wild West where the sheriff was non existent or could be killed in an instant leaving towns unprotected. We aren't living out in the wilderness or on the range someplace where the Indians roam and we're concerned about getting scalped. This is a society where it appears civilization gets more violent the more weapons there are to create violence. It means people have less rights than guns.

Even some top politicians like Terry Goddard, Attorney General of Arizona, believes gun laws need to be changed. He declares he isn't afraid of the NRA, just respectful of them. The way people act, however, especially politicians, it's difficult to believe that it is just respect that keeps politicians in check, afraid of rocking the boat when it comes to the rights of gun owners.

So let's not just knee jerk when there is an outburst of violence on a campus or in a shopping mall or on a freeway somewhere. Let's take a look at some serious changes. After all, I'm not sure our forefathers believed that the Constitution was to last through the ages like some inviolable religious treatise. Did Thomas Jefferson not come from the age of reason, and is it reasonable to keep the laws completely the same without any changes throughout the entirety of man's history. Doubtless, that might not be reasonable.

Therefore I believe we should use the laws of reason and do what I believe our founding fathers would really want: use our brains to do what we need to do to keep the people safe from violence. That means redoing the Second Amendment to adapt to the changes of the culture and the community of the present, reflecting the needs of the people rather than those of just gun owners.
_______________________________________________________________

The country has outgrown the Second Amendment and the time has come to change it.
The Constitution is not written in stone and the founding fathers left ways to amend it.
Muskets were the arms at the time of the writing of the constitution.

Things are dull right now and even if there is no chance of this coming to pass anytime soon in light of the Tuscon tragedy I thought I would throw out this red meat for discussion because eventually IMO the Second Amendment will be changed and handguns and high powered automatic weapons will be severely restricted to police and military like in all the other civilized advanced countries.
America may be an exceptional place but most americans are not other than in self esteem.(Jersey Shore? the new mutt class of america)
It's sad to think this pride(a sin) of gun worship,obsession and saturation is the main exeptionalism of America, letting anyone who wants to pack deadly force amuse themselves with little or no justification.

Let the flaming begin!

 

[Calabrio]

No. The 2nd amendment protects one of my natural rights.
My rights don't come from government, government exists to protect those rights.

Are there any other components of the "Bill of Rights" you'd like to repeal as well?
Perhaps you're scared of that 1st amendment and, in your ridiculously ignorant, but thoroughly condescending tone, you don't think people are exercising it incorrectly. Maybe they should repeal that one too?

Unfortunately, because people like you are so afraid of firearms and continue to misrepresent them, we never actually discuss them honestly. The real problem is that we make guns scary mysterious things. Many people have huge misconceptions about what guns do and what they are capable of. Because it's so stigmatized, it's makes learning about them much more difficult. We can't just honestly and candidly talk about guns like we talk about cars or drills in certain circles. That silence leads to ignorance and prevents knowledge from being shared.

 

[04SCTLS]

No. The 2nd amendment protects one of my natural rights.
My rights don't come from government, government exists to protect those rights.

Are there any other components of the "Bill of Rights" you'd like to repeal as well?
Perhaps you're scared of that 1st amendment and, in your ridiculously ignorant, but thoroughly condescending tone, you don't think people are exercising it incorrectly. Maybe they should repeal that one too?

Unfortunately, because people like you are so afraid of firearms and continue to misrepresent them, we never actually discuss them honestly. The real problem is that we make guns scary mysterious things. Many people have huge misconceptions about what guns do and what they are capable of. Because it's so stigmatized, it's makes learning about them much more difficult. We can't just honestly and candidly talk about guns like we talk about cars or drills in certain circles. That silence leads to ignorance and prevents knowledge from being shared.

That's right, I fear guns because IMO they make us a dimmer coarser country.
Countries with strict gun controls are more disciplined and are beating our soft asses(battle hymn of the tiger mom while we make sad misguided cultural pornography for our youth like Skins) and they are the future.
The attitude seems to be because I have a powerful gun I am powerful and respected.
I may not be as smart accomplished and disciplined as them foreigners but my gun equalizes any cultural shortcomings.
So in your thinking you have a natural right to own a gun, a manufactured item for killing living beings.
How is that "natural" since guns don't come from nature and only american right wing culture has this sentiment.
I am talking candidly so give me your honesty about guns and the mayhem and collateral damage they facilitate.
Guns make it easy and effortless to kill people at a whim.
Using other means is a lot more work and effort.
That's an honest statement.
Keep it in the realm of reality as opposed to the ideal of gun ownership.

 

[shagdrum]

How is that "natural" since guns don't come from nature and only american right wing culture has this sentiment.

Are you actually interested in a discussion or are you simply asking a rhetorical question aimed at showing how more more "enlightened" you are then the rest of us?

I tend to think it's the latter...

 

[Calabrio]

That's right, I fear guns because IMO they make us a dimmer coarser country.

Countries with strict gun controls are more disciplined and are beating our soft asses(battle hymn of the tiger mom while we make sad misguided cultural pornography for our youth like Skins) and they are the future.

One has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other.

The attitude seems to be because I have a powerful gun I am powerful and respected.

That's simply a ridiculous statement.

I may not be as smart accomplished and disciplined as them foreigners but my gun equalizes any cultural shortcomings.

Again, that is a foolish statement, unsupported by reality, unrelated to the actual debate you were motivated to initiate.

So in your thinking you have a natural right to own a gun, a manufactured item for killing living beings.

I have the right to defend myself. Lethal force is sometimes the only option.
And I'm not dependent upon the government to protect me.

This is further reinforced by the court ruling that stated that the government is NOT RESPONSIBLE for protecting people. Look up Warren v. District of Columbia. Furthermore, we don't have enough law enforcement to perform such a role. Police can really only respond.

How is that "natural" since guns don't come from nature and only american right wing culture has this sentiment.

It's remarkable how you're able to condense so much ignorance and misconceptions into a single statement, yet still include enough arrogance to make it mildly funny yet thoroughly depressing.

Do you really want yet another lecture on what "natural rights" are?
It doesn't have anything to do with the way manufactured goods are produced.

As for why other countries may not share our sentiment. To put it simply, they don't share our values, their systems of government are different, and they don't put the emphasis on the individual. Many of them are also not founded on the premise that our rights are given to us by the creator, and that the PEOPLE give the power to government, not vice versa.

I am talking candidly so give me your honesty about guns and the mayhem and collateral damage they facilitate.

Shall we also speak about the massive loss of lives associated with automobiles? Knives? How about swimming pools? Because those things all kill far more people annually than firearms. And if you don't count gang violence, the numbers aren't even close.

If we break down the numbers, you'll quickly discover that gun owners are extremely responsible and that CCW holders have rates of crime vastly lower than that of the general public.

Guns make it easy and effortless to kill people at a whim.
Using other means is a lot more work and effort.
That's an honest statement.
Keep it in the realm of reality as opposed to the ideal of gun ownership.

Cars, knives, bricks, rocks, and explosives make it easier to kill.
That's not the point.

Guns make it possible to defend yourself. A gun makes it so that a 100lb woman can defend herself from a 200lb rapist. A gun makes it so that a father can protect his family from a group of home invaders long enough for the police to arrive.

And the "reality" supported by the statistics confirm this.

Furthermore, if you repeal this amendment, if you ban my right to own or carry a firearm, do you honestly think the world will be safer? Do you honestly think that bad guys, whatever their form, will simply go unarmed?

And even if it does, am I supposed to feel better if an unarmed mugging or rape victim is merely stabbed with a knife or bludgeoned to death?

Additionally, what's the response by criminals to an unarmed populace? I've watched the jail house interviews, criminals are more freightened by homeowners with a gun than they are of the police. If the cop can catch them as they run away, he has to politely take them to jail. If the homeowner finds them, they can kill them on the spot. I've seen interviews where professional criminals and gang members breakdown and cry when they have related the experience of stealing a DVD player and having someone put a gun to their neck.

 

[04SCTLS]

Are you actually interested in a discussion or are you simply asking a rhetorical question aimed at showing how more more "enlightened" you are then the rest of us?

I tend to think it's the latter...

I'm just throwing out a challenge.
You're the one throwing up ad hominem "enlightened" instead of explaining that you think guns are an extension of the natural right to protect oneself.
I'm just guessing that is your explanation.

 

[cammerfe]

Straw Men and van Vogt

The most lethal construct in this country (perhaps in all modern society all over the world?) is the bathtub. If all 'enlightened' individuals were to want to make the world a safer place, they'd be demonstrating in the streets for demolishing bath rooms and requiring people to use a garden hose in the back yard.

Ridiculous? Yeah, I suppose it is. BUT, IT WOULD SAVE LIVES THAT ARE, UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF BATHING, GOING TO BE FORFEIT. And as is often said, 'if it would save just one life...'

That we're having this discussion at all is a tribute to the activities of those progressives in society who have found that a 'straw man' is a good way to lead the populace around by the nose.

Hitler made it work by focusing on easily identified people. Progressives simply focus on firearms, devices that further the idea that '...the right to be armed is the right to be free.... van Vogt had it right!

KS

 

[shagdrum]

You're the one throwing up ad hominem "enlightened" instead of explaining that you think guns are an extension of the natural right to protect oneself.

Now it's an "extension of the natural right to protect oneself"?

Doesn't really seem all that consistent with this statement...

So in your thinking you have a natural right to own a gun, a manufactured item for killing living beings.
How is that "natural" since guns don't come from nature and only american right wing culture has this sentiment.

Is the notion of gun ownership as tied to the second amendment a "natural right" in and of itself or an "extension of the natural right to protect oneself"?

 

[04SCTLS]

One has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other.


That's simply a ridiculous statement.



Again, that is a foolish statement, unsupported by reality, unrelated to the actual debate you were motivated to initiate.



I have the right to defend myself. Lethal force is sometimes the only option.
And I'm not dependent upon the government to protect me.

This is further reinforced by the court ruling that stated that the government is NOT RESPONSIBLE for protecting people. Look up Warren v. District of Columbia. Furthermore, we don't have enough law enforcement to perform such a role. Police can really only respond.


It's remarkable how you're able to condense so much ignorance and misconceptions into a single statement, yet still include enough arrogance to make it mildly funny yet thoroughly depressing.

Do you really want yet another lecture on what "natural rights" are?
It doesn't have anything to do with the way manufactured goods are produced.

As for why other countries may not share our sentiment. To put it simply, they don't share our values, their systems of government are different, and they don't put the emphasis on the individual. Many of them are also not founded on the premise that our rights are given to us by the creator, and that the PEOPLE give the power to government, not vice versa.


Shall we also speak about the massive loss of lives associated with automobiles? Knives? How about swimming pools? Because those things all kill far more people annually than firearms. And if you don't count gang violence, the numbers aren't even close.

If we break down the numbers, you'll quickly discover that gun owners are extremely responsible and that CCW holders have rates of crime vastly lower than that of the general public.



Cars, knives, bricks, rocks, and explosives make it easier to kill.
That's not the point.

Guns make it possible to defend yourself. A gun makes it so that a 100lb woman can defend herself from a 200lb rapist. A gun makes it so that a father can protect his family from a group of home invaders long enough for the police to arrive.

And the "reality" supported by the statistics confirm this.

Furthermore, if you repeal this amendment, if you ban my right to own or carry a firearm, do you honestly think the world will be safer? Do you honestly think that bad guys, whatever their form, will simply go unarmed?

And even if it does, am I supposed to feel better if an unarmed mugging or rape victim is merely stabbed with a knife or bludgeoned to death?

Additionally, what's the response by criminals to an unarmed populace? I've watched the jail house interviews, criminals are more freightened by homeowners with a gun than they are of the police. If the cop can catch them as they run away, he has to politely take them to jail. If the homeowner finds them, they can kill them on the spot. I've seen interviews where professional criminals and gang members breakdown and cry when they have related the experience of stealing a DVD player and having someone put a gun to their neck.

Accidental deaths are not the same as most handgun deaths.
If we didn't have so many handguns in the first place there would not be as much of a need to arm oneself.

Unfortunately we have 270 million guns right now and conservatives want to make it easier to get one legally.

In the last few days I have read about 2 police officers who while looking for a car thief trespassed through a fence and shot the owner who had come out with his handgun which he didn't raise and merely said hey there.
Their testilying has been discredited even though they destroyed most of the evidence.

Also there was a case here recently where a civilian ran after a bank robber and emptied his 8 shot handgun while not hitting the perp but putting bystanders in danger.

Pulling a gun on plainly dressed cops mistaken for criminals usually results in being shot and the cops claim soverign immunity.

 

[04SCTLS]

Now it's an "extension of the natural right to protect oneself"?

Doesn't really seem all that consistent with this statement...
Is the notion of gun ownership as tied to the second amendment a "natural right" in and of itself or an "extension of the natural right to protect oneself"?

That is a good question.
We have a natural right to defend ourselves but do we have a natural right to own a gun.

 

[shagdrum]

Keep it in the realm of reality...

The argument for restrictions on guns inherently ignores reality on some very fundamental levels.

 

[shagdrum]

In the last few days I have read about 2 police officers who while looking for a car thief trespassed through a fence and shot the owner who had come out with his handgun which he didn't raise and merely said hey there.
Their testilying has been discredited even though they destroyed most of the evidence.

So...cops shouldn't be armed?

 

[04SCTLS]

So...cops shouldn't be armed?

Not at all
My point is when confronted with a situation cops are likely to shoot first and ask questions later.
You know my opinion of being wary of interacting with the police
because of the stress they have dealing with lowlifes and liars all the time.
A homeowner protecting himself with a gun is likely to get shot if the mistaken burglers or perps are plainclothes cops.

 

[cammerfe]

That is a good question.
We have a natural right to defend ourselves but do we have a natural right to own a gun.

The natural right to defend one's self is destroyed, or at least damaged, when the implements necessary to that defense are made unavailable. As above, the right to be free IS the right to be armed.

KS

 

[04SCTLS]

The argument for restrictions on guns inherently ignores reality on some very fundamental levels.

Guns may be needed for protection but certainly not for sport.
They are merely wanted.

 

[Calabrio]

Accidental deaths are not the same as most handgun deaths.

And accidental handgun deaths are different than the murderous rampages that you seem to be so worried about.

If we didn't have so many handguns in the first place there would not be as much of a need to arm oneself.

According to who? Do you have anything that even resembles or sounds like a fact to back up your assertions?

Will you be banning knives next? What about large rocks?

Unfortunately we have 270 million guns right now and conservatives want to make it easier to get one legally.

Again, care to provide specifics so that there is something to actual respond to.

In the last few days I have read about 2 police officers who while looking for a car thief trespassed through a fence and shot the owner who had come out with his handgun which he didn't raise and merely said hey there.

"Hey there."
Again, provide a link so there's something to discuss.
And are you now suggesting we ban police officers from carrying a hand gun?
Or are you saying that the homeowner shouldn't have had a gun in his possession when a possibly armed car thief might have run through his yard and hidden in his home or taken his family hostage?

Their testilying has been discredited even though they destroyed most of the evidence.

So you are discrediting the police WHILE you simultaneously argue that we should be more dependent upon them for our most basic security

Also there was a case here recently where a civilian ran after a bank robber and emptied his 8 shot handgun while not hitting the perp but putting bystanders in danger.

Do you have a point?
I don't think you do. Are you just trying to kill time until someone a bit more articulate can jump in and tag you out?

Pulling a gun on plainly dressed cops mistaken for criminals usually results in being shot and the cops claim soverign immunity.

And your point is???
What does this have to do with the 2nd Amendment?

Again, you're attacking the judgment and integrity of the very institution that you think we should entirely rely on for all manners of our security. And the government agency that has neither the responsibility nor the man power to provide that protection, as I pointed out earlier.

 

[foxpaws]

Shall we also speak about the massive loss of lives associated with automobiles? Knives? How about swimming pools? Because those things all kill far more people annually than firearms. And if you don't count gang violence, the numbers aren't even close.

Swimming pools kill more people than guns Cal? On purpose right - we are talking about deaths with regards to 'purposeful' killings? Guns kill a lot of people, I believe about 30,000 a year - however, you need to delete from that statistic suicides, accidental shootings, and 'defense' shootings, which I think leaves you at around 10,000 'purposeful' or 'offense' killings (murder). I am fascinated - where are those numbers - I would love to see that stat.... I bet purposefully intended swimming pool killings can't be that high. (Accidental drownings are around 3,600)

Same with vehicles, very few 'purposeful' killings with them (except angry wives who run over their cheating husbands with the Mercedes, which I might add is vehicular homicide car of choice when it comes to crazy women.). Knives however - quite purposeful - what is the stat on knife killings in the US Cal? Oh - 1,805 deaths with a sharp object.... I guess that would include pointy sticks... (however, those are 'purposeful' deaths - no running with scissors deaths are included in that number).

Guns make it possible to defend yourself. A gun makes it so that a 100lb woman can defend herself from a 200lb rapist. A gun makes it so that a father can protect his family from a group of home invaders long enough for the police to arrive.

I agree - and we need to make sure this remains a 'right' in this country - the ability to defend ourselves, our family, and yep, I'll even go with property on this one. With guns - it is a constitutionally protected 'right' to own firearms in this country to defend ourselves. But, we draw a line with 'defense' don't we?

There lies the difference - 'to defend'.

 

[Calabrio]

Guns may be needed for protection but certainly not for sport.
They are merely wanted.

Anyone who argues the 2nd Amendment in terms of sport shooting is either wrong or foolishly attempting to discuss it in a benign way that won't offend the sensitivities of people afraid of firearms.

The 2nd amendment is NOT defending a sport or past time.

 

[04SCTLS]

According to who?

Well according to DUH of course.

If there weren't so many guns there wouldn't be as many gun incidents.

Accidental deaths are not the same as purposeful killings.
How many traffic fatalities are on purpose, maybe a handful a year.

According to who? Do you have anything that even resembles or sounds like a fact to back up your assertions?

Will you be banning knives next? What about large rocks?

Well DUH again
More guns existing equals more guns needed for protection.
Knives and rocks require getting close and nasty and need more effort.

"Hey there."
Again, provide a link so there's something to discuss

I read this a few days ago while cruising my newspapers folder,
It was in florida or georgia but I didn't bookmark it.
I'll try to find the link later.

So you are discrediting the police WHILE you simultaneously argue that we should be more dependent upon them for our most basic security

The police do a good job usually but it's natural for people to make up reasons when things get botched. If the homeowner hadn't come outside with a gun the police would not have shot him.

Do you have a point?

Not everyone is trained to use a firearm in a heated moment and doing so may create more danger.

 

[04SCTLS]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...peal-in-lottery-winner-s-excessive-force-suit

Washington
Ok he said "Halt" to the cops.
A Florida man has won his bid to sue two sheriff’s deputies for allegedly using excessive force when they entered his fenced property without permission and shot him seven times after he confronted them in the darkness outside his home.

The US Supreme Court on Monday refused without comment to take up the deputies’ appeal. The deputies had argued that the case should be thrown out of court because as law enforcement officers they are protected from liability by qualified immunity.
A federal judge and the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling that the case could be presented to a jury to determine whether the deputies acted reasonably. The high court action allows the trial to move forward.

The case revolves around the April 2006 shooting of Robert Swofford in Altamonte Springs, Florida. Mr. Swofford was well known in the community; two years earlier he won $60 million in the Florida lottery.
The series of events leading to the shooting began at 2:28 a.m. when Seminole County Deputy Sheriff Donald Remus noticed two men attempting to “hotwire” a car in an apartment complex parking lot. When the men saw the deputy they fled in the direction of Swofford’s property.
The deputy called for backup and chased the men but lost sight of them down the road. With an infrared-equipped police helicopter on the way, Remus and K9 Deputy William Morris decided to use Morris’ dog to track the suspects. They followed the scent to Swofford’s place, pried some boards back on the six-foot tall wooden fence and entered his six-acre property to search for two Hispanic men.
Swofford was asleep in bed when he heard his dog barking. He took his gun, locked his house, and went outside to investigate. After checking his garage, the former US Army special forces captain knelt in some brush to watch for intruders. He had his gun out, but had not chambered a round in preparation for an immediate gun fight.
He watched as two men with flashlights came through his fence after prying the boards back. One of the men appeared to be wearing a uniform, but he saw no insignia. The men moved through the property toward Swofford’s position. Swofford shouted “Halt.” The flashlights swung toward him.
Details of the rest of the encounter are in dispute. Swofford says he was immediately shot, then he heard someone yell “Seminole County Sheriff’s Office,” followed by more shots.
The deputies say they each gave at least three verbal warnings to Swofford that they were deputies and that he must put his gun down. One deputy said Swofford was in the act of raising his gun to aim it at the deputies, the other said Swofford was already pointing his gun directly at them.
In their brief to the high court, the deputies said their decision to use lethal force against the home owner was justified because they had “at most one second to defend themselves from Swofford.”
Swofford says he received no verbal warning prior to being shot, that he never raised his gun above his waist, and that his weapon was always aimed toward the ground.
During the incident, one of the officer’s radios remained open. According to court documents, a radio-dispatch recording made at the time of the shooting contains “no recorded evidence of Remus or Morris identifying themselves to Mr. Swofford” before opening fire on him.
It is believed at least seven shots were fired by the deputies, five by Morris, two by Remus. Swofford never discharged his weapon.
Swofford received seven gunshot wounds during the incident and spent six weeks in the hospital.
The shooting isn’t the only questionable activity by the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office. In 2009, a federal judge imposed sanctions against the two deputies and the sheriff’s office for destroying evidence related to the Swofford shooting.
Although Swofford’s lawyer had requested that all evidence related to the shooting be preserved, a laptop computer, the radios, the guns, and the uniforms used on the night of the shooting were destroyed. In addition, all Seminole County Sheriff’s Office emails for the day of the shooting and the following year were destroyed.
In one email received after the shooting, a fellow law officer referred to Deputy Remus as the “Lotto killa.” The email was an apparent reference to the fact that the shooting victim, Swofford, had won the Florida lottery.
According to court documents, Remus replied: “I need to go to the sign shop and have them put that name on the side of the [squad] car.”
The judge found that Remus and Morris willfully contributed to the destruction of evidence in the case.
“Nothing other than bad faith can be inferred from the facts of this case,” US District Judge Mary Scriven said in her order. “This is not a circumstance of inadvertent destruction of evidence or negligence in the loss of material data,” she said. “Rather, it is a case of knowing and willful disregard for the clear obligation to preserve evidence.”
The judge added: “The bad faith is clear, and the prejudice to [Swofford] is substantial.”

 

[Calabrio]

And before I read any further, I'll have to remind myself, foxpaws supports the 2nd amendment and gun rights. I know this because she has told us so.
Not SCuTtleS can tag out....

Swimming pools kill more people than guns Cal?

Focusing on the child mortality issue, since that's usually a popular method of scaring responsible people from having a gun in the house.
Based on the first source I found online, almost 1,200 children (under 14) a year die in swimming pools.
Over 5,000 are hospitalized because of drowning. Nearly 20% of them suffer permanent disability as a result of the accident.

In contrast, less than 25 children under 14 die from an accidental firearm discharge in the U.S. Numbers vary by year, but the figure is always low. I've even seen statistics that show that more kids (nearly double) die playing organized football than because of accidentally discharge of a firearm.

On purpose right - we are talking about deaths with regards to 'purposeful' killings?

Were we?
Is it necessary to make this a thread about figures, one where we'd be better served to use an excel spreadsheet and we invest all our time arguing about samples and statistics?

Guns kill a lot of people, I believe about 30,000 a year - however, you need to delete from that statistic suicides, accidental shootings, and 'defense' shootings, which I think leaves you at around 10,000 'purposeful' or 'offense' killings (murder).

The purposeful of offense killing number is actually lower than that.
And if you take out inner city gang violence, it's extremely low.

I agree - and we need to make sure this remains a 'right' in this country - the ability to defend ourselves, our family, and yep, I'll even go with property on this one. With guns - it is a constitutionally protected 'right' to own firearms in this country to defend ourselves. But, we draw a line with 'defense' don't we?

There lies the difference - 'to defend'.

I don't know what point your trying to make. I suspect you're trying to hijack the thread and get some "tree of liberty" talk to take place.

Even the Clinton Justice Department released a report that showed that guns were used 1.5 million times a year for defense. Frankly, I suspect the number is higher than that when considering the source.

If we want to decrease some of the actual violence, we need to address social issues, not amend the constitution to limit our freedom.

 

[shagdrum]

There lies the difference - 'to defend'.

There are also many ways to define "defend".

Going on the offensive is, in many circumstances, part of defense. Look at the approach of most any martial art. If offense were not part defense then there would be no reason to learn how to strike (kick, punch, etc).

 

[foxpaws]

And before I read any further, I'll have to remind myself, foxpaws supports the 2nd amendment and gun rights. I know this because she has told us so.

I own guns cal - duh....

Not SCuTtleS can tag out....

????

Were we?

We should talk about murder only cal, shouldn't we - or do you want to avoid that because guns are the weapon of choice when it comes to murder. It is a fact - why avoid it?

The purposeful of offense killing number is actually lower than that.
And if you take out inner city gang violence, it's extremely low.

Sorry - it isn't - I was less than 10% off - it is over 9,000 murders in the US by firearms Cal.

And why would you remove gang killings - they are deaths, and some would be removed with gun control laws - drive by 'knifings' are difficult at best... Maybe they would go for bows and arrows...

Gangs with guns are a problem - they not only shoot themselves - they shoot innocent family members, neighbors, shop owners, etc.

I don't know what point your trying to make. I suspect you're trying to hijack the thread and get some "tree of liberty" talk to take place.

Even the Clinton Justice Department released a report that showed that guns were used 1.5 million times a year for defense. Frankly, I suspect the number is higher than that when considering the source.

Ah, no cal - actually I know that piece you linked to very well....

On the basis of data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, about 108,000 per year.​

If you actually read the piece - it is a rather aggressive rebuttal of various surveys of how often gun owners use their weapons in a defense scenario -

One of my favorites is a woman claimed to have 'defended' herself 52 times in one year... that is probably 52 false positives - how much do you figure that skewed the numbers...

It is an excellent paper cal - I would advise you reading it - it shows how telephone surveys are often just 'bunk'.

If we want to decrease some of the actual violence, we need to address social issues, not amend the constitution to limit our freedom.

I agree - but is one of the social issues the acceptance of gun violence as 'norm'? Do we need to accept all gun violence as the price we pay for individual freedom? Is some gun violence preventable without infringing our our ability to 'defend' ourselves, our family or our property?

 

[04SCTLS]

Not SCuTtleS can tag out....

You're so clever when you make incoherent nonsequetorial attempts at sarcasm only you understand

 

[cammerfe]

Both Sides Now

'04, I gotta admit that you make me waver back and forth between seeing you as an agent provocateur sowing discord around here in order to be able to s:q:q:q:q:q:q, and just a liberal twit. You usually make some valid points no matter where you are 'coming down' at the time. But more often, I simply shake my head in dismay.

One more time, here, you've managed to talk out of both sides of your mouth, and almost simultaneously at that!

KS

(And one more time our PC website tries to bowdlerize my statements. I wasn't aware that S N I G G E R was a proscribed word!?!?!?)